| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
They may already do that -- I've not heard about it if so. But there are threads that can start and you know that X and Y are going to chime in and the thread is going to be locked in a heartbeat.Let me assure you that they do send warnings to serious offenders.
Yes we do. However, if people are expecting a public lashing and pillorying of offenders, or notification of bans, they're not going to get it. Those are topics are handled privately via email, and we very rarely hand out permanent bans.
They may already do that -- I've not heard about it if so. But there are threads that can start and you know that X and Y are going to chime in and the thread is going to be locked in a heartbeat.Let me assure you that they do send warnings to serious offenders.
Ah good to know. I suspected that they might, but without doing some serious digging I didn't know how to back that up. Thanks!
I also think some of the posters are not doing as much effort as they should to keep the discussions friendly, and quite a few should review their behaviour, and reread their posts before posting.
Right. Often, just because you yourself don't think that you are being rude or abusive, you still may be. Read your post to a person that has no interest in the conversation and see what they think. My wife often has me rewrite things after I read them to her to try for more general, less direct language and to bring things down. Then again, she also takes the keyboard away and makes me walk it off instead of hammering out a post I'll later regret.
Yes we do. However, if people are expecting a public lashing and pillorying of offenders, or notification of bans, they're not going to get it. Those are topics are handled privately via email, and we very rarely hand out permanent bans.
No, I'm not looking for a public shaming for anyone nor bans of any type. But we have a lot of repeat offenders and I was unsure if they were getting a bug in their ears to simmer down or if they were just writing posts, getting them removed, rinse and repeat. Glad to hear that there is some communication happening backstage.
|
Ah good to know. I suspected that they might, but without doing some serious digging I didn't know how to back that up. Thanks!They may already do that -- I've not heard about it if so. But there are threads that can start and you know that X and Y are going to chime in and the thread is going to be locked in a heartbeat.Let me assure you that they do send warnings to serious offenders.
I only know of a particular ban because the individual messaged me privately about it. I myself received a warning a few years ago. As Liz pointed out, Paizo handles such things privately, so many people never see the results of moderation.
|
Then again, she also takes the keyboard away and makes me walk it off instead of hammering out a post I'll later regret.
Smart woman - if my gf sees me raging she will pull me away from the machine and make me watch an old movie to chill me out - currently this is anything with Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather the moderators stay out of the heated/controversial threads if they do not cover Paizo product or edition warring.
To me the core issue is when a moderator (who is human, and will take a stance on one side or another) is posting and moderating in non-paizo product thread and is either deleting posts that they dislike or is being zealous of maintaining "off topic" moderation when a post deviates from the subject matter is dear to their personal beliefs.
IMO (and this is just my opinion) - the safest and most consistent way to go would be if moderators stayed out of non-paizo product discussions and just moderate the forums - for language, post that break forum rules and to eliminate attacks/insults on other posters.
Example: Right now we have more than a few gender-roles/gender politics threads going on simultaneously and some of the regular posters in those threads are Paizo staff. I understand that this issue are near and dear to most if not all the staff here, but is it really necessary for the staff to both post in and moderate threads that are already volatile/hot-button issues? Is it necessary for Paizo staff to post in these at all?
I strongly disagree with that. I've read some very good posts by Paizo people in some of those threads.
And, okay, I agree with some of the views expressed by some of the Paizo staff, but I've also had posts deleted, and recently got an off-topic warning, the latter specifically on a gender issue.
I'd rather that they continue to contribute to such threads when they feel it appropriate, or when they have something to say.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I pretty strongly disagree with the idea that Paizo staff should stay out of moderating threads in which they are conversing. For me it's one of the great features of the board that we get to interact with Paizo staff as people and not just in their capacity as Paizo staff members.
I don't even see how limiting the participation of Paizo staff would address the perceived 'problem' anyway. Paizo staff are going to have the same political views whether they're posting in a thread or merely moderating it. By trying to chase staff away from posting and into moderating from the shadows that will only make things worse. I trust the judgement of the Paizo staff to separate personal beliefs from their moderation. If they're ever unsure then certainly it makes sense to double-check with another staff member that their judgement is sound, but I'd be surprised if that doesn't sometimes happen already.
Certainly when I used to moderate forums being involved in a thread made me more cautious about moderating if anything, people could see I was involved so would automatically assume I did any deleting. But if something offensive is posted then it should be removed whether a moderator is participating or not.
And frankly I've participated in and read a number of the hot topic threads and have always found the moderation pretty even handed. There's a lot of confirmation basis going on where one 'side' will complain bitterly about posts being deleted, while missing posts getting deleted from the other 'side' are ignored.
I don't think the suggestion was that Paizo mods and designers stop posting. The suggestion is simply that when moderation is required on a thread in which a given mod / designer is already posting that it be handed off to another mod to deal with from that angle. I think that's a pretty good suggestion.
I don't think that shackles designers or mods and leaves them unable to post or engage with the community, given that I've never seen every moderator engaged in a single topic as is. There ls always someone who is "clean" who can come in and clean up the mess.
I also think some of the posters are not doing as much effort as they should to keep the discussions friendly, and quite a few should review their behaviour, and reread their posts before posting.Right. Often, just because you yourself don't think that you are being rude or abusive, you still may be. Read your post to a person that has no interest in the conversation and see what they think. My wife often has me rewrite things after I read them to her to try for more general, less direct language and to bring things down. Then again, she also takes the keyboard away and makes me walk it off instead of hammering out a post I'll later regret.
I think it's also fair to ask that people reread posts (and read the entire thread) before they go flag happy. There are threads that start off or become very quickly relatively acerbic. In many cases these are threads that are rehashing arguments for the hundredth time (often between the same people). There's no attempt to be anything but forthright and to the point. I don't think such comments go against the message board rules simply because they don't come off as friendly, but I see an awful lot of flagging going on in those threads and moderation usually lands on a post no more egregious than any other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is it inappropriate?
*blinks*
Conflict of interest, of course. But that's patently obvious. Moderators are only human, after all. They run the risk of "moderating" posts (and worse, users) that they don't agree with. If they are taking part in a discussion (especially a "heated" discussion), it would be wise if they did not also moderate that particular discussion.
You will find that most staffers and or mods even from different sites take place in conversations and such in most threads.
That's great! But then those taking part shouldn't moderate those particular threads.
If they were to excuse themselves from moderating simply because they are taking part in the thread they would not be much of a moderator then.
Interesting. But not even remotely true, AFAIC. I'm not even sure what you mean. Not only would they be "much of a moderator", they'd be among the best moderators there are.
If you have a problem with a moderator and their discussion and or moderation actions you have the report link in their post. Many mods and staffers have brought this up.
??
Indeed they have. I'm not sure why you are.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think that shackles designers or mods and leaves them unable to post or engage with the community...There's no attempt to be anything but forthright and to the point. I don't think such comments go against the message board rules simply because they don't come off as friendly, but I see an awful lot of flagging going on in those threads and moderation usually lands on a post no more egregious than any other.
Well, except that in general, I like it when Jessica does it, even when we don't agree. She is so open and honest that I appreciate her viewpoints even when I disagree with them.
Same with SKR.
I think too much of the flagging is done to get rid of posts with good arguments that the "other side" wants deleted.
I do miss Ross, tho.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Me too, I never got to give him the hair doll I made for him
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's also fair to ask that people reread posts (and read the entire thread) before they go flag happy. There are threads that start off or become very quickly relatively acerbic. In many cases these are threads that are rehashing arguments for the hundredth time (often between the same people). There's no attempt to be anything but forthright and to the point. I don't think such comments go against the message board rules simply because they don't come off as friendly, but I see an awful lot of flagging going on in those threads and moderation usually lands on a post no more egregious than any other.
I agree with you there. And because the usual suspects have debated some of these topics over and over, and have history, some of the back and forth becomes heated. I've been in and read threads where it was really a back and forth between a few people with some new names making comments and getting massacred in the crossfire. The flag system is good, but it is also going to result in "I don't like X or what X says, so eat a flag!" Thankfully the mods can weigh what is going on and it isn't an automatic kill on a post.
As far as friendly -- I don't think that the posts have to be sunshine and happiness, but some of the hostility is unwarranted. If you hate the paladin code and have made it well known (for instance, this is an example and not speaking about Peter Stewart directly) then calling someone a moron for not having read your ten part epic post rant about paladins on another thread is just unnecessary. Disagree, but don't be disagreeable.
He works for Google now, you know. I have friends there.
Hey Ross, you know a Jeff B.? Kinda new, programmer?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
He works for Google now, you know. I have friends there.
Hey Ross, you know a Jeff B.? Kinda new, programmer?
With a mere 46,421 emplyees, I'm sure they all know each other on a first-name basis.
I don't think the suggestion was that Paizo mods and designers stop posting. The suggestion is simply that when moderation is required on a thread in which a given mod / designer is already posting that it be handed off to another mod to deal with from that angle. I think that's a pretty good suggestion.
How many people do you think a small outfit like Paizo has moderating at any one time? How long do you want to wait before someone else finds the time to do it? They don't have volunteer moderators. For the most part they seem to have multiple jobs at Paizo and moderation probably isn't the priority for most of them. The longer until moderation occurs the more replies end up being deleted and, in the end, the more disjointed a thread becomes. I'm fine with them posting and moderating in the same thread. If they are there with "boots on the ground" they should just take care of business. Which seems to me, is what they do. Quite well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is it inappropriate?*blinks*
Conflict of interest, of course. But that's patently obvious. Moderators are only human, after all. They run the risk of "moderating" posts (and worse, users) that they don't agree with. If they are taking part in a discussion (especially a "heated" discussion), it would be wise if they did not also moderate that particular discussion.
You will find that most staffers and or mods even from different sites take place in conversations and such in most threads.That's great! But then those taking part shouldn't moderate those particular threads.
If they were to excuse themselves from moderating simply because they are taking part in the thread they would not be much of a moderator then.Interesting. But not even remotely true, AFAIC. I'm not even sure what you mean. Not only would they be "much of a moderator", they'd be among the best moderators there are.
If you have a problem with a moderator and their discussion and or moderation actions you have the report link in their post. Many mods and staffers have brought this up.??
Indeed they have. I'm not sure why you are.
If they are professionals there isn't a conflict of interest. Using your logic we should recuse police from giving tickets, teachers from writing referrals, etc. because they might be biased... well, no. We count on their professionalism. I don't think there is anyone at Paizo who doesn't realize they are representing their company when they moderate.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather the moderators stay out of the heated/controversial threads if they do not cover Paizo product or edition warring.
To me the core issue is when a moderator (who is human, and will take a stance on one side or another) is posting and moderating in non-paizo product thread and is either deleting posts that they dislike or is being zealous of maintaining "off topic" moderation when a post deviates from the subject matter is dear to their personal beliefs.
IMO (and this is just my opinion) - the safest and most consistent way to go would be if moderators stayed out of non-paizo product discussions and just moderate the forums - for language, post that break forum rules and to eliminate attacks/insults on other posters.
Example: Right now we have more than a few gender-roles/gender politics threads going on simultaneously and some of the regular posters in those threads are Paizo staff. I understand that this issue are near and dear to most if not all the staff here, but is it really necessary for the staff to both post in and moderate threads that are already volatile/hot-button issues? Is it necessary for Paizo staff to post in these at all?
At best this comes across as unprofessional and at worst it looks like some of the staff posters are using the threads here as a soapbox to convey their personal views and those that don't stay 100% on top of the moderators immediate discussion are quashed.
Not saying it IS SO, saying that's how it LOOKS to some of us.
You guys (staff) have all the power here.
If this forum is going to allow discussion of real world topics like gender, religion, and politics, then NO ONE should be silenced on the subject. That includes the Paizo staff. And my sense is what you are asking for, between the lines, is certain people to be silenced, and I do not find that cool at all. And it is in fact antithetical and detrimental to the idea of "open discourse" that you and other posters were advocating for earlier in the thread.
As for moderators getting hotheaded and deleting something perhaps they shouldn't--my understanding is that that most of the time, staff consult with each other before deleting a post. Even though one person does it, usually it is the result of several staff conferring on the issue. There may be instances where someone's kneejerk deleted something when they shouldn't have but I sincerely doubt that is very much the exception to the rule. Should a staff member ask someone else to go through and do the deleting, even if multiple people agree on it? Possibly? But it might create more work for them that isn't really necessary.
And otherwise--I strongly feel, either everyone gets an opinion--or no one does. I have been to forums where "real world" topics like politics and religion were banned (and posting about such things were a warnable offense). Often, honestly, for good reason, unfortunately. But if you're going to allow hot button topics to be discussed, then I think it's only fair that everyone gets a chance to participate if they want to, and especially the people who effectively own this sandbox.
You may dislike it, but it's entirely your choice to be here. You can accept your choice, understanding that means you may have to put up with staff you dislike and opinions you don't want to read, or make another.
I don't think the suggestion was that Paizo mods and designers stop posting. The suggestion is simply that when moderation is required on a thread in which a given mod / designer is already posting that it be handed off to another mod to deal with from that angle. I think that's a pretty good suggestion.
I believe Berik was replying to Auxmaulous's post above, which says, "the safest and most consistent way to go would be if moderators stayed out of non-paizo product discussions and just moderate the forums" and "Is it necessary for Paizo staff to post in these at all? " -- To me that is a very clear suggestion that they do not post at all in certain threads.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If this forum is going to allow discussion of real world topics like gender, religion, and politics, then NO ONE should be silenced on the subject. That includes the Paizo staff. And my sense is what you are asking for, between the lines, is certain people to be silenced, and I do not find that cool at all. And it is in fact antithetical and detrimental to the idea of "open discourse" that you and other posters were advocating for earlier in the thread.
Was the intention of these forums to provide information and support for paizo posters/buyers of product or was this place set up for paizo employees to engage in discourse with gamers on political and social issues? IDK - they know what they want out of this. I would assume it would be used as a vehicle to sell product and stay in touch and support their client base, but they may have a different overall objective.
And their is no "in between the lines", I don't think that paizo staff should get involved in off-topic debates unless paizo wants each employee to represent the views of their company to the general public. Or if the do want to post - if the compulsion is so great that they need to set one of their customers "right", then maybe they shouldn't be involved in that threads moderation.
As for moderators getting hotheaded and deleting something perhaps they shouldn't--my understanding is that that most of the time, staff consult with each other before deleting a post. Even though one person does it, usually it is the result of several staff conferring on the issue. There may be instances where someone's kneejerk deleted something when they shouldn't have but I sincerely doubt that is very much the exception to the rule. Should a staff member ask someone else to go through and do the deleting, even if multiple people agree on it? Possibly? But it might create more work for them that isn't really necessary.
More work? Don't they have enough to do with maintaining their product release dates and minimizing many of the technical and logistical issue they have been having come big book shipment? I know this isn't a large company so you will get a webstore staff member moderating posts or the project manager deleting offensive comments (or not) but do they really need to chime in a heated exchange on gender roles and prejudice (as an example)?
Do they need to be involved in those exchanges?
I'm asking a real question here...
And as far as staff communally reviewing posts before they get deleted I just don't believe it. Some, somewhat subjective interpretation of what is "off topic" get whacked right away - within a minute. Either its the moderator/staff making the call (since they are in the exchange) or no one has work to at paizo but read the forums all day - and I seriously doubt the latter.
And otherwise--I strongly feel, either everyone gets an opinion--or no one does. I have been to forums where "real world" topics like politics and religion were banned (and posting about such things were a warnable offense). Often, honestly, for good reason, unfortunately. But if you're going to allow hot button topics to be discussed, then I think it's only fair that everyone gets a chance to participate if they want to, and especially the people who effectively own this sandbox.
If they want this to be their own arena - where they right perceived social wrongs while sending a mixed messages about what can or cannot pass their censors (based on world view) then have at it. Like I said in my OP - this is their site, but come out and say it.
"We have X view on this subject and if you don't like it then don't post here and don't buy our product".
You may dislike it, but it's entirely your choice to be here. You can accept your choice, understanding that means you may have to put up with staff you dislike and opinions you don't want to read, or make another.
If I thought I was wasting my time here I wouldn't bother posting. I know they have a different world view from mine - I get it, and good for them. They still put out some good product and I respect their gaming pedigree even if I disagree with their politics.
That doesn't mean I need to shut up and get in line...or does it?
From the moderation of this thread I think they are listening to their customers - at least they are faking it. IDK anymore.
And their is no "in between the lines", I don't think that paizo staff should get involved in off-topic debates unless paizo wants each employee to represent the views of their company to the general public.
The idea that Paizo would institute a policy forbidding staff from posting about socially important issues to them seems so contrary to Paizo's culture and past practice that I feel like it would be a waste of time to discuss at length (even if the suggestion didn't also come off exactly like DQ says it does, and I am sure you did not mean it that way).
How about we just ignore that half of the post, then, and debate the pros (and cons?) of the alternative suggestion, not moderating without some distance from the fray.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Objectivity is a myth. No one walks into a moderation situation without an agenda. Paizo is a business; if one of their own goes berserk and starts posting or moderating in appropriately, I imagine they will be reined in. In my experience, the Paizo boards, like most officially sanctioned boards, are a better experience than independent boards. Why? Because there is a presumption of a shared community. All you need to do to post on some random RPG board is an opinion. If you post here, it's a given you care about Paizo's products, and are probably a fan. So, I don't miss any so-called "objectivity," some of the worst boards on the 'net are moderated under the pretense of neutrality. I appreciate that the Paizo staff operate as professionals, as members of the Pathfinder and RPG community, and as good, decent people. Those are far more important to me than offering "equal time" to any and all opinions, some of which are, frankly, horrible.
I want bias in the moderation. Anything that is biased toward information, communication, fun, creativity, and friendliness, I am all for it. It's sad that this even needs to be said, but yes, that means diversity and tolerance in a 21st century kind of way.
If they are professionals there isn't a conflict of interest. Using your logic we should recuse police from giving tickets, teachers from writing referrals, etc. because they might be biased... well, no. We count on their professionalism. I don't think there is anyone at Paizo who doesn't realize they are representing their company when they moderate.
Just like it's fine for judges to try cases involving people they know or issues they have interests in. Obviously that's on a larger scale, but that's why judges get the big bucks.
A judge chooses to recuse themselves from a case. They determine if their objectivity is at risk. If a Paizo staffer decided they couldn't moderate a thread I guess I can understand it. I still prefer moderation happen in a timely fashion. And I'm not sure I'd compare court cases to board moderation... parking tickets and referrals maybe, theft and murder not so much :)
I have been to forums where "real world" topics like politics and religion were banned (and posting about such things were a warnable offense).
As have I, and it happens to be my preferred manner of seeing to the subjects in question. Obviously Paizo feels differently, so the only remaining option is to avoid such topics myself. Which makes the hide buttons a godsend.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've kind of suspected from the beginning that The Real Issue here is: "some moderators express views which I don't like (and even worse, by voicing these views they empower others), so let's build an elaborate argument against them taking part in discussion".
That's what it seems to me too.
Back on topic:
If anything I think the moderation is a little too light handed, but I've always assumed that's because of how busy the staff usually is.
It's hard to find a thread in which there isn't a poster being snarky, offensive and/or nasty.
Also, if the Paizo moderators have a bias against aggressive, jerky, demeaning, homophobic, misogynistic and racist comments, I am OK with their bias.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do you know what happens if you make the forums hostile enough that they're not worth moderating? Ask Games Workshop. You drop them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've kind of suspected from the beginning that The Real Issue here is: "some moderators express views which I don't like (and even worse, by voicing these views they empower others), so let's build an elaborate argument against them taking part in discussion".
That's strange - I thought this thread was about selective/uneven (and potentially biased) moderation letting the phrase "suck my d&^%" stand where normal moderation would have had it removed in a heartbeat.
Go figure - it must be a witch hunt.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've kind of suspected from the beginning that The Real Issue here is: "some moderators express views which I don't like (and even worse, by voicing these views they empower others), so let's build an elaborate argument against them taking part in discussion".
I think that's quite unfair, although it's an easy shot to take. I love that the staff engage in debate, or take up cudgels in defence of their own world view and cultural position. It's what really sets this company apart from other forums that I belong to. I think what's being objected to is the danger that Mod A states a position, and poster B objects to that position and states an opposite one, does Mod A then remove said post or let it stand and counter it by reasoned debate? Can you be objective where you are emotionally invested? Should you even try? The company I work for will not allow anyone to work on a case where there is a conflict of interest, and that includes moral objection to a client's business where this is likely to interfere with the job being undertaken, where the staff member in question thinks this may prove problematic.
What you're suggesting is that the entire thrust of this thread is that people would like to see opinions from mods that run contrary to their own censored. It might be the case, but which statements in the thread do you believe support this view?
I have to say I've never had a problem with the moderation on the site personally, and I've never been subject to anything heavy handed (or even light handed). I have seen a few people behave like asses or state things that I thought were pretty objectionable, but the mods have for the most part let those views be challenged in open debate. So, for me, it's more a consideration of what seems logical.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, if the Paizo moderators have a bias against aggressive, jerky, demeaning, homophobic, misogynistic and racist comments, I am OK with their bias.
You see, I don't know if I am. I would rather such views were challenged wherever they appear, so they can be shown to be offensive. Is silencing debate good or moral in and of itself? Being aggressive, yes, because that's not an opinion it's just bullying, but I would rather someone were called out for being homophobic / misogynistic / racist because those are legitimate opinions, however misguided, and I would hold out the hope that people who hold them could have their opinions changed. Just putting your hand over someone's mouth isn't going to change their world for the better.
I don't know, I'm ambivalent about this. I do believe the above, but I don't necessarily believe that a family friendly forum like Paizo's is the place for it, or that folks on an internet forum are necessarily going to respond appropriately. I guess the danger is that being 'jerky' is rather a moveable feast, and whilst it's easy to identify things that fall into the category of 'demeaning / homophobic / racist' and get those removed, I'm not so confident that there isn't someone who can be offended by anything. One of my co-workers has just made an official complaint about the girl she works with for being too quiet. And if that person is a Moderator are they always adhering to company policy on what's offensive?
I dunno. 'Who'd be a Mod?' seems to be the lesson I'd take from this thread. The bigger and more successful Paizo becomes, the harder the job is.
|
I only know of a particular ban because the individual messaged me privately about it. I myself received a warning a few years ago. As Liz pointed out, Paizo handles such things privately, so many people never see the results of moderation.Ah good to know. I suspected that they might, but without doing some serious digging I didn't know how to back that up. Thanks!They may already do that -- I've not heard about it if so. But there are threads that can start and you know that X and Y are going to chime in and the thread is going to be locked in a heartbeat.Let me assure you that they do send warnings to serious offenders.
ONE warning? Excuse me, but your Bragging Rights are hereby revoked. Softie. ;-) <3
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have been to forums where "real world" topics like politics and religion were banned (and posting about such things were a warnable offense).As have I, and it happens to be my preferred manner of seeing to the subjects in question. Obviously Paizo feels differently, so the only remaining option is to avoid such topics myself. Which makes the hide buttons a godsend.
I think the sites which ban "real world topics" are smart to do so.
But I think sites which allow them shouldn't disallow anyone from posting to them, at least not based on who they are on principle and who they work for. Obviously if you're banned from the site for breaking the site rules, that's different--you agree to the terms and conditions of the site when you get an account here, you break those terms and conditions, you know the consequences are coming.
To me, either you don't allow the topic at all, or you allow the topic and everyone gets a voice (save those whose posts are deleted for breaking the rules--and it's been made clear here you can flag and report staff just like you can any other member of the community).
And I think you, Orthos, are probably smart to avoid most of those discussions regardless. :)
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
You may not have noticed, but other than the *ASK PAIZO STAFFER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS HERE* type threads, Paizo staff don't much post in OTD. I asked Erik about that a few years ago and he told me there wasn't any particular company policy about it, just that Paizo staffers were a pretty professional bunch.
They also moderate OTD less than other forums.
OTD is sort of an "at your own risk" kind of place; you have to put on your big boy/girl pants and realize that you're going to find opposing viewpoints presented in a combative manner. I remember the days when OTD was more civil, but the reality is that's just no longer the case.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember the days when OTD was more civil, but the reality is that's just no longer the case.
I miss those days. Now it's pretty much just FAWTL and a few of the surviving silly cult threads, and everything else gets hidden as soon as it pops up.
I've kind of suspected from the beginning that The Real Issue here is: "some moderators express views which I don't like (and even worse, by voicing these views they empower others), so let's build an elaborate argument against them taking part in discussion".That's strange - I thought this thread was about selective/uneven (and potentially biased) moderation letting the phrase "suck my d&^%" stand where normal moderation would have had it removed in a heartbeat.
Go figure - it must be a witch hunt.
I can't link to any off hand, but it seems to me that posts which use offensive phrases to describe offensive behavior last longer than those that use offensive phrases for the fun of it. I mean, I'm a little surprised that "[redacted] my [redacted]" wasn't caught by the profanity filters, but the quote wasn't an endorsement by any means.
It's a separate issue, but I'm a little curious about what the hell people are even describing when they say "flag happy." Personally, I flag any posts I feel are worthy of flagging, as that's what the button is there for. If you haven't been flagging posts you find offensive in favor of arguing your point, and plan to start flagging them instead, you've sort of embraced Paizo's recommended approach; if you're planning on flagging inoffensive statements by posters you disagree with just to get back at them, I imagine the mods will figure that one out pretty quickly and take whatever action they deem appropriate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was the intention of these forums to provide information and support for paizo posters/buyers of product or was this place set up for paizo employees to engage in discourse with gamers on political and social issues? IDK - they know what they want out of this. I would assume it would be used as a vehicle to sell product and stay in touch and support their client base, but they may have a different overall objective.
That seems to suggest those are two mutually exclusive objectives, when that is clearly not the case.
I know this isn't a large company so you will get a webstore staff member moderating posts or the project manager deleting offensive comments (or not) but do they really need to chime in a heated exchange on gender roles and prejudice (as an example)?
Do they need to be involved in those exchanges?
I'm asking a real question here...
I think part of Paizo's identity as a company is a progressive one. They make that clear in their products. Engaging in discussions on gender roles and prejudice makes it clear that the staff members are as concerned about these issues as many of their customers are (self included). As far as I'm concerned, their engagement on such issues on the messageboards adds to the value of the boards, the company, and their products.
If they want this to be their own arena - where they right perceived social wrongs while sending a mixed messages about what can or cannot pass their censors (based on world view) then have at it. Like I said in my OP - this is their site, but come out and say it.
Again, they've frequently made it clear that they are concerned about certain social issues. They have done so outside of the boards - I've heard it come up in various interviews or panels with the staff.
"We have X view on this subject and if you don't like it then don't post here and don't buy our product".
I think the last bit goes without saying. If you don't agree with them, don't buy their products (or modify them as you see fit for your home games).
That doesn't mean I need to shut up and get in line...or does it?
I don't think so. But someone arguing with you about views you hold that they disagree with is not the same as telling you to shut up and get in line.